Copyright © 1998
Cadman Enterprises Ltd
Welcome to the Graham Slee Audio Products Owners Forum Open to all owners plus those contemplating the purchase of a Graham Slee HiFi System Components audio product and wishing to use this forum's loaner program: join here (Rules on posting can be found here) This website along with trade marks Graham Slee and HiFi System Components are owned by Cadman Enterprises Ltd |
Bitzie first impressions |
Post Reply | Page <1 1415161718 33> |
Author | |
mitch65
Senior Member Joined: 02 Feb 2013 Location: East Sussex Status: Offline Points: 553 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
And this will always be the issue, high bit-rate will remain a niche product because, generally, people are happy with mp3, etc. No commercial incentive. |
|
Greg
Rega Planer 3 Gram Amp 2 Audiolab 8000A Auralic Aries Mini Russell K 50 |
|
Graham Slee
Admin Group Retired Joined: 11 Jan 2008 Location: South Yorkshire Status: Offline Points: 16298 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Actually the bit rate is sufficient (at 24 bits which is really 20 bit) - it's the way it's used.
As usual in hi-fi it has to be about bloated boastful overkill. WTF (sorry for swearing) do we need a -120dB noise floor? 60dB S/N is more than adequate, but hi-fi is so blinking religious the mere suggestion brands you as a heretic! If it were to be acceptable to those with the hearing of a bat (and I don't believe for 1 second that people can hear a ratio of 1,000:1 amidst all that music), then you would be playing with 3dB intervals instead of 6dB. But, whatever . . . if you want virtually stepless sampling and a ridiculous S/N ratio you're going to need more than 24 bit (which is 20 sample bits - the other 4 are for non-music data). 16 bit gives you 96dB S/N and 24 bit (20 bit) gives you 120dB S/N. I'm not going to work it out here but the complexity of it all makes Edison and all who have developed his invention look like absolute geniuses, and the digital camp the complete opposite. |
|
That none should be able to buy or sell without a smartphone and the knowledge in how to use apps
|
|
Humboldt
Senior Member Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 251 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Well, I don´t think I said digital is superior to analog. Or did I? I think I said that in the end it is subjective what is best. Anyway, what I tried to say was just that theoretically - it is rather digital than analog having the potential to capture and reproduce an exact match of the recorded sound. I am in no way a professional when it comes to digital audio (or analog audio), but from my own readings and understanding about how digital audio works, and with all respect, I think you have misunderstood how digital audio and sampling works. It would be a very lengthy post from my side however, to try to explain how I have came to that conclusion. I suggest the following reading instead as a start. http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/articles/digitalaudio.htm Edited by Humboldt - 26 Mar 2013 at 7:11pm |
|
Humboldt
Senior Member Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 251 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I do agree, and I don´t see the need for so called hi-res downloads. But I would love to see recording engineers and record companies utilize the full potential of ordinary CD:s. I have some CD:s with a sound quality to die for... but these are rare. The Hi-Fi world, or audiophile world, has for so long as I can remember been a lot about "magic" and "mysticism". This is not new for digital. It was the same in the 80:ties when I started go serious about Hi Fi (and had the money to afford the equipment) A while ago I read a newspaper article. It was an interview with a Vinyl record shop owner. He tried to explain that analog vinyl is better, because we have nerves just beneath our skin, and these nerves capture the analog frequencies, and analog frequencies are different than digital frequencies - and even if we can´t hear it, we can feel it. There have always been - from time to time - strange ideas circulating, i e strange meaning ideas that have been some sort of common sense for a while - without any rational argument behind and no ground in established facts and knowledge. So called Hi Res files is in my opinion a perfect example - since we don´t have the hearing of the bats. Edited by Humboldt - 26 Mar 2013 at 7:48pm |
|
JamesD
Senior Member Joined: 05 Nov 2012 Location: Bolsover Status: Offline Points: 246 |
Post Options
Thanks(1)
|
Maybe I'm wrong but I think during the last century most people just had their hifiand 3 or 4 channels on TV for home entertainment and as a result more effort was made to get decent quality sound down onto vinyl so that it could be enjoyed to the full.
These days people have access to millions of pages of information on the internet, life-like "computer" games, a myriad of TV channels, iPads, Facebook and lots of other things to keep them occupied when they're at home. Thanks to iPods, mobiles and improved car stereo systems it's now possible to listen to reasonable quality sound almost anywhere. Maybe for a large proportion of the population it's not such a big deal any more to just sit down and enjoy decent quality sound in their living rooms. Given that they spend a lot of time listening to music in less than ideal environments (whilst busy doing other things) they've forgotten what well recorded music can be all about. Well, maybe. Just my view. |
|
Humboldt
Senior Member Joined: 15 Oct 2009 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 251 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
JamesD, I think it is a lot of substance in what you say.
|
|
Ash
Senior Member Joined: 18 Mar 2013 Location: Dorset Status: Offline Points: 4334 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
I need to come to your defence now, even though my post was not targeted directly at you. You did not say that digital is superior to analogue, no. You only stated your preference and you are entitled to an opinion. Perhaps I am thinking wrong and perhaps it is in fact digital that has the greater potential for accurate reproduction. I'm still trying to understand the implications of everything I'm reading, that's all. So I'm going to make plenty of mistakes. Neither of us are professionals but I suspect that you have more knowledge than I do, likely making your view more credible than my own. I know that I still have a lot to learn and that my current understanding does lack in areas. Thanks for the link for further reading. |
|
We do not see things as they are. We see things as we are.
|
|
Post Reply | Page <1 1415161718 33> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |